update_team_member

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update/edit operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The example shows a mutation, but no safety or operational context is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example) and uses bullet-like formatting. While somewhat lengthy due to the example, every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and providing an example. However, it lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and doesn't mention the output schema exists, though the 'Returns' section helps. It's adequate but has gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides detailed parameter explanations beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage). It clarifies required vs. optional parameters, explains 'account_roles' structure, and describes 'can_manage_team_global_webhooks'. However, it doesn't explain 'team_id' or 'user_id' beyond labeling them as required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Edit and update') and resource ('a team member from a specific team'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'invite_team_member' or 'update_lead', which could help with tool selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'invite_team_member' or 'update_lead'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing existing team membership) or typical use cases, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.